Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Brian E Mavis

Publications and source records attributed to Brian E Mavis.

4 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Being uninformed on informed consent: a pilot survey of medical education faculty.

BACKGROUND: This paper describes a pilot survey of faculty involved in medical education. The questionnaire focuses on their understanding of IRB policies at their institution, specifically in relation to the use of student assessment and curriculum evaluation information for scholarship. METHODS: An anonymous survey was distributed to medical educators in a variety of venues. Two brief scenarios of typical student assessment or curriculum evaluation activities were presented and respondents were asked to indicate their likely course of action related to IRB approval. The questionnaire also asked respondents about their knowledge of institutional policies related to IRB approval. RESULTS: A total of 121 completed surveys were obtained; 59 (50%) respondents identified themselves as from community-based medical schools. For the first scenario, 78 respondents (66%) would have contact with the IRB; this increased to 97 respondents (82%) for the second scenario. For both scenarios, contact with the IRB was less likely among respondents from research-intensive institutions. Sixty respondents (55%) were unsure if their institutions had policies addressing evaluation data used for scholarship. Fifty respondents (41%) indicated no prior discussions at their institutions regarding IRB requirements. CONCLUSION: Many faculty members are unaware of IRB policies at their medical schools related to the use of medical student information. To the extent that policies are in place, they are highly variable across schools suggesting little standardization in faculty understanding and/or institutional implementation. Principles to guide faculty decision-making are provided.

Awareness↗
PubMed2002

Medical students as standardized patients to assess interviewing skills for pain evaluation.

PURPOSE: The use of medical students as standardized patients in a performance assessment of pain evaluation was studied. METHODS: Fifty-two pairs of second-year medical students participated. One student portrayed a patient presenting with cancer pain and was interviewed by the other medical student. The student-patient then rated the interview using a checklist of pain assessment and general interviewing skills. The interviews were audiotaped and also rated independently. RESULTS: Based on student-patient ratings, 36 (69%) students demonstrated 9 or more of the 11 pain-specific checklist items, compared to 34 (65%) students according to the trained rater. Highly specific pain-related items had higher agreement than broader interviewing skill items. There would be differences in the summary assessments of students depending on which rating data were used. DISCUSSION: Medical students represent a readily accessible resource as patients for clinical simulations. Students tended to overestimate the performance of fellow students, but acting as a standardized patient had educational value, and can be used to extend simulated patient encounters within the curriculum. Further investigation is needed to improve the reliability of the feedback provided by student-patients.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed2002

A strategy for developing educational evaluations for learner, course, and institutional goals.

The curricula for both veterinary and human medicine are undergoing review and change as a new and highly competitive practice environment influences what abilities graduates require to be successful. Concerning many is the contention that some graduates lack skills and aptitudes necessary for economic success. If significant changes are to be considered for the curricula of either profession, it will be difficult to plan for meaningful change in the absence of high-quality information about the needs of graduates and related curriculum gaps. The purpose of this article is to argue why educators should design more effective systems of evaluation that are responsive to the needs of educational program planning. One example from a medical school is described. In this case, the authors discuss how their institution's evaluations were insufficient for answering new and important questions that go beyond traditional cognitive measures: specifically, no data set was available that allowed the institution to answer questions about practice environment and curricular innovations. More recently, institutions have become interested in learning to what extent their broad missions are accomplished or not. Similarly, academic leaders are not simply interested in performance of learners on tests of competence; they want to know more about how their graduates are doing in the practice setting. To answer questions such as these, educators must expand their systems of evaluations to address these broader themes. The authors conclude by identifying several lessons learned from their experiences in developing a new system of educational program evaluation.

Animals↗